Lingual Nerve Microsurgery Outcomes Using 2 Different Conduits: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Matthew T. Wilson, Sung Kiang Chuang, Vincent B. Ziccardi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose This study compared a type 1 collagen conduit (NeuraGen) with a porcine small intestinal submucosa conduit (AxoGuard) when used in lingual nerve microsurgery and any differences in achieving functional sensory recovery (FSR). Patients and Methods All patients who underwent lingual nerve microsurgery performed by 1 surgeon (V.B.Z.) from 2007 to 2014 had their surgical information obtained by a retrospective review of hospital records and office charts after institutional review board approval. Those patients whose surgery included the use of a nerve conduit were included in the study. Subjective neurosensory recovery was determined by neurosensory testing, including responses to hot, cold, wisp, brush, and pinprick. Objective recovery was determined by testing 2-point discrimination and fine touch threshold with von Frey fibers. The objective findings were correlated to a Medical Research Council System score, with grades S3, S3+, and S4 indicating FSR. Results The conduits were compared using a Student t test with a 2-tailed hypothesis. The von Frey fiber test had a preoperative mean of 6.29 (standard deviation [SD], 0.95), which improved to 3.97 (SD, 0.67) for the NeuraGen and 4.17 (SD, 0.56) for the AxoGuard. Two-point discrimination improved from a mean higher than 19.42 to 9.32 mm (SD, 2.96 mm) for the NeuraGen and 9.67 mm (SD, 2.13 mm) for the AxoGuard. The mean FSR was S3+. Conclusions There were no meaningful differences in outcomes between the 2 conduits studied, and all patients achieved FSR according to the Medical Research Council Scale.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)609-615
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume75
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Lingual Nerve
Microsurgery
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Biomedical Research
Hospital Records
Research Ethics Committees
Touch
Collagen Type I
Swine
Students

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Oral Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

@article{0e4567c1b4284b6481d3c5531184ff80,
title = "Lingual Nerve Microsurgery Outcomes Using 2 Different Conduits: A Retrospective Cohort Study",
abstract = "Purpose This study compared a type 1 collagen conduit (NeuraGen) with a porcine small intestinal submucosa conduit (AxoGuard) when used in lingual nerve microsurgery and any differences in achieving functional sensory recovery (FSR). Patients and Methods All patients who underwent lingual nerve microsurgery performed by 1 surgeon (V.B.Z.) from 2007 to 2014 had their surgical information obtained by a retrospective review of hospital records and office charts after institutional review board approval. Those patients whose surgery included the use of a nerve conduit were included in the study. Subjective neurosensory recovery was determined by neurosensory testing, including responses to hot, cold, wisp, brush, and pinprick. Objective recovery was determined by testing 2-point discrimination and fine touch threshold with von Frey fibers. The objective findings were correlated to a Medical Research Council System score, with grades S3, S3+, and S4 indicating FSR. Results The conduits were compared using a Student t test with a 2-tailed hypothesis. The von Frey fiber test had a preoperative mean of 6.29 (standard deviation [SD], 0.95), which improved to 3.97 (SD, 0.67) for the NeuraGen and 4.17 (SD, 0.56) for the AxoGuard. Two-point discrimination improved from a mean higher than 19.42 to 9.32 mm (SD, 2.96 mm) for the NeuraGen and 9.67 mm (SD, 2.13 mm) for the AxoGuard. The mean FSR was S3+. Conclusions There were no meaningful differences in outcomes between the 2 conduits studied, and all patients achieved FSR according to the Medical Research Council Scale.",
author = "Wilson, {Matthew T.} and Chuang, {Sung Kiang} and Ziccardi, {Vincent B.}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "75",
pages = "609--615",
journal = "Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery",
issn = "0278-2391",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "3",

}

Lingual Nerve Microsurgery Outcomes Using 2 Different Conduits : A Retrospective Cohort Study. / Wilson, Matthew T.; Chuang, Sung Kiang; Ziccardi, Vincent B.

In: Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 75, No. 3, 01.03.2017, p. 609-615.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lingual Nerve Microsurgery Outcomes Using 2 Different Conduits

T2 - A Retrospective Cohort Study

AU - Wilson, Matthew T.

AU - Chuang, Sung Kiang

AU - Ziccardi, Vincent B.

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Purpose This study compared a type 1 collagen conduit (NeuraGen) with a porcine small intestinal submucosa conduit (AxoGuard) when used in lingual nerve microsurgery and any differences in achieving functional sensory recovery (FSR). Patients and Methods All patients who underwent lingual nerve microsurgery performed by 1 surgeon (V.B.Z.) from 2007 to 2014 had their surgical information obtained by a retrospective review of hospital records and office charts after institutional review board approval. Those patients whose surgery included the use of a nerve conduit were included in the study. Subjective neurosensory recovery was determined by neurosensory testing, including responses to hot, cold, wisp, brush, and pinprick. Objective recovery was determined by testing 2-point discrimination and fine touch threshold with von Frey fibers. The objective findings were correlated to a Medical Research Council System score, with grades S3, S3+, and S4 indicating FSR. Results The conduits were compared using a Student t test with a 2-tailed hypothesis. The von Frey fiber test had a preoperative mean of 6.29 (standard deviation [SD], 0.95), which improved to 3.97 (SD, 0.67) for the NeuraGen and 4.17 (SD, 0.56) for the AxoGuard. Two-point discrimination improved from a mean higher than 19.42 to 9.32 mm (SD, 2.96 mm) for the NeuraGen and 9.67 mm (SD, 2.13 mm) for the AxoGuard. The mean FSR was S3+. Conclusions There were no meaningful differences in outcomes between the 2 conduits studied, and all patients achieved FSR according to the Medical Research Council Scale.

AB - Purpose This study compared a type 1 collagen conduit (NeuraGen) with a porcine small intestinal submucosa conduit (AxoGuard) when used in lingual nerve microsurgery and any differences in achieving functional sensory recovery (FSR). Patients and Methods All patients who underwent lingual nerve microsurgery performed by 1 surgeon (V.B.Z.) from 2007 to 2014 had their surgical information obtained by a retrospective review of hospital records and office charts after institutional review board approval. Those patients whose surgery included the use of a nerve conduit were included in the study. Subjective neurosensory recovery was determined by neurosensory testing, including responses to hot, cold, wisp, brush, and pinprick. Objective recovery was determined by testing 2-point discrimination and fine touch threshold with von Frey fibers. The objective findings were correlated to a Medical Research Council System score, with grades S3, S3+, and S4 indicating FSR. Results The conduits were compared using a Student t test with a 2-tailed hypothesis. The von Frey fiber test had a preoperative mean of 6.29 (standard deviation [SD], 0.95), which improved to 3.97 (SD, 0.67) for the NeuraGen and 4.17 (SD, 0.56) for the AxoGuard. Two-point discrimination improved from a mean higher than 19.42 to 9.32 mm (SD, 2.96 mm) for the NeuraGen and 9.67 mm (SD, 2.13 mm) for the AxoGuard. The mean FSR was S3+. Conclusions There were no meaningful differences in outcomes between the 2 conduits studied, and all patients achieved FSR according to the Medical Research Council Scale.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006002304&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006002304&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.022

DO - 10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.022

M3 - Article

C2 - 27765550

AN - SCOPUS:85006002304

VL - 75

SP - 609

EP - 615

JO - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

JF - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

SN - 0278-2391

IS - 3

ER -